Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1887-09-02
from the Toledo Blade.1

oAoAl syAopoAAo AAoA Aeo P"6oo
portions which answer the questions
which are agitating other communities
engaged in the effort to disenthrall
themselves from the letters Of rum.
l. The first point made by the enc
mics of Prohibition is, that "Prohibi-
ton does not prohibit, because in
Kansas, and Iowa, and Maine there
are large number of persons who
have paid the United States revenue
tax for retail dealers.
The answer to this, made by the
Kansas people. and which is as ap-
plicable to Maine or Iowa as to their
State, is this: First, every druggist
must pay the United States tax. There
are 1900 druggists in Kansas, and this
at once accounts for that many. The
recent amendments to the liquor law
are extremely stringent as to the sale
of rum by druggists; drug stores can
not be considered as drinking places,
and they are not. Second, the number
of permits issued is not even pri1na
facie evidence that the same number of
saloons or drinking places exist. Cases
like this explain large number: A
saloon-keeper took out o permit and
opened saloon, but was soon COM
PEELED to close up. He moved to a
neighboring town, and repeated the
experiment with the same result. He
went to third town, and for the third
time within year attempted to run a
saloon, and failed. At each place q
permit was taken out. Then there
are instances where the proprietor
and two or three clerks hold
permits to retail liquors at the
same place. Tbs, of course, is
done to enable them to change
proprietors frequently, for the pur-
pose of defeating prosecutions. II A
is prosecuted, he claims that B is the
proprietor. If B is the victim, he
claims that c is the proprietor. Gov
eminent permits are essential in such
an emergency, to keep them out of the
clutches of Uncle Sam, for whom the
average saloon-keeper has a profound
reverence. The saloon takes permit,
runs for few days, and is compelled
to close up. The saloon, or drinking
place, is gone, but the record of the
permit remains in the collectors office
during the whole year. A permit is.
sued to dealer who runs clandestine
saloon only twenty-four hours, makes
as big showing against prohibition
to those who do not understand it-as
though he ran saloon 365 days in the
year. The number of permits issued,
instead Of indicating great number OF
saloons, is rather indicative of the fact
that for the past year saloon-keepere
have been "kept on the jump"
2. The next point made is that the
law is not and can not be enforced in
any State.
In reply to this point the Secretary
of the Kansas State Temperance Union
declares:
The enforcement of prohibition in Kansas
under the new law, during the past seven
months, has boon more absolute anu thorough
than has ever been known in the history OF
prohibition in any State.
The individual, the newspaper, or the Or
ganlzation that says this law IL failure
deliberately falsifes the record it has made,
or is ignorant of what it has accomplished
In his report of July 1, 1856, Attor-
ney General S. B. Bradford, of Kansas,
says:
The saloon is fast disappearing from the
State; practically it is gone. LII four counties
in which it was thought that juries could not
be obtained, prosecutions have resulted in
convictions. There is not county in Kansas
III which a fair jury can not be obtained; and
there is not a county in the State where the
| law can not be enforced to the satisfaction of
the whole people, with the aid of few
amendments giving additional power to the
officers charged with its enforcement.
Let us put upon tie stand John Wal.
ruff, the noted brewer, who defed the
law from its passage until recently.
when he gave up the fight. Under
date of March IS, 1887, he wrote to
Richard katzenmayer, Secretary of
the United States Brewers Associa-
ton:
In Kansas the outlook is very blue.
and will be compelled to give up the fight
First on account Of my health and my age. /
cannot stand the constant annoyance any
fight any longer. l will state to you nv ex-
perence during the last four or five mouths,
In November last we had Grand Jury. and
from the makeup of it, it was certain that
they would find indictments against me- l,
| my son, and my son-in-law, left the State
When we returned and had to enter into a
bond amounting to $1,000 for our appearance
atthe February term Of court
! The court convened on the It'll of February
| anu again we had 10 leave the State, and our
bonds were forfeited It was found out that
We We're in Missouri, and the Governor of
Kansas made requisition upon the Governor
OF Missouri for our delivery. I won't with
the Sheriff from our county to the Governor
OF Missouri in order to resist the granting of
the requisiton, as there was no necessity for
it, because we were under $4,000 bond l
had the influence and the assistance Of two
| Senators from Missouri, who acted as nv at
torneys, but Of no avail The Governor
granted the requisition and the Sheriff broug ht
me back to Lawrence, Kaa My son and son
in-law, meanwhile, had gone to Nebraska
coming ming home the Judge raised in
to day. This was on Tuesday, and NV trial
was was set T. for tr; Thursday following had
sure. and the least fine the court would have
inflicted would have been 81, 500 and fifteen
months M! Imprisonment in the county jail
This Iwould not do, and left the State again
When court was called and did not appear.
the Judge raised my bond to s25, 600, nv som,
to $1,000, and my son-in-lsw's to the same
amount-943, 900 in all. ""AAe
Since February Z, with the exception of the